It's total bullshit. News becomes entertainment because reality is boring. Then when reality becomes a Tom Clancy novel the news industry is so used to embellishing non-news that it can't even recognize real news.

If what I heard from someone fairly knowledgeable is true, part of the problem is that there's a faction at the FBI, and a crew that's particularly willing to leak things to the media, that honestly does care more about the Clinton emails than the Russian government influencing the election. Which is bizarre since the basic purpose of the FBI was (more or less) to stop the Russian government from influencing US elections.

when reality becomes a Tom Clancy novel the news industry is so used to embellishing non-news that it can't even recognize real news.

As in 1998, for example.
THE WORLD: "Hey, a multi-millionaire international terrorist just blew up two US embassies and has promised to destroy America! And the President just ordered a retaliatory strike with cruise missiles on his remote mountain lair guarded by thousands of fanatical mujahedin!"

THE NEW YORK TIMES: "Hmm, clearly the important part of this story is how it relates to the blowjob thing."

Slatepitch: the Watergate scandal was the worst possible thing that could happen for government accountability in the US. The burglary attempt was a pathetic nothing of a crime that harmed no one, but the Woodward/Bernstein expose set a norm that only cover-ups that got exposed could bring presidents down. Calling for Nixon's impeachment over the bombing of Cambodia was wild hippie nonsense. The rule became that you could do whatever you wanted as long as you didn't try to hide it.
Similarly, Nixon ranting about Jews was only newsworthy because he did it in private. If he'd come out in public and said something like "hey, the Waffen-SS were good guys who just got into an unfortunate situation and we should mourn their deaths!" no one would have cared.

17: I remember the "Wag the Dog" bullshit from that era. I'm almost convinced that had Gore been president 9/11 would not have happened. The Clinton team took Bin Laden seriously and there's every reason to believe Gore would have continued that. Certainly retasking intelligence assets from Al Qaeda to Iraq made 9/11 much harder to stop. Clinton did a fantastic job of keeping his eye on the ball despite the impeachment nonsense. Hopefully Clinton II will be as good.

On November 9, I'd like to see Obama appoint a special prosecutor to look into this shit. Its not ok for civil servants at the FBI to attempt to influence upcoming elections by means of leaking selected details regarding ongoing investigations. People should be fired, if not jailed.

Russian hackers, almost definitely state sponsored from the sophistication of the code, copied lots of material from DNC servers, and released these via wikileaks.

One of Trump's guys, Manafort, has received colossal amounts of money from Yanukhovich and has current business dealings with Deripaska. Manafort is reported to have strongly influenced Trump to choose Pence instead of Christie. Trump's military guy, Flynn, has accepted money from Russian broadcasters for giving a speech-- a lower level of entanglement than Manafort.

There was a huge scammy business entity, Bayrock that financed Trump projects (mainly Trump SoHo) with Russian oligarch money. I don't know how important Trump SoHo is to DJT financially-- possibly it is a scam that he lent his name to.

20- Certainly Trump has shown that's the case for dogwhistle vs. siren vs. LRAD. Politicians still feel the need to deny/apologize for calling for violence against their opponents, that's probably the next wall to fall- "Damn right I called for murdering that piece of shit, it would be patriotic to take out such threat to the country!" (Although the media might still get all het up about the profanity.)

32.2 understates the case. It is certainly two Russian intelligence units, one associated with GRU, the other probably FSB. In other words, not Russian-sponsored but actually Russian, and sanctioned by Putin himself.

And when Trump built a tower in Panama, his clients were wealthy Russians, the Washington Post reported. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia," Trump's son, Donald Jr., said at a real estate conference in 2008, according to a trade publication, eTurboNews.

And then there's all the evidence on the other side, what they're getting in return from Trump- most of which is rhetoric so far but is totally bizarre in its consistency given that Trump normally can't hold the same position for more than a week:
- Says he doesn't know if Russia was behind DNC hacks even though his own security briefers said so;
- Defended Russia from shooting down of MH17, claiming there's no proof Russian insurgents did it;
- Putting Russian-friendly position about Ukraine into RNC platform, reversing the previous position (and was apparently the only thing Trump's team personally intervened with in the platform);
- Badmouthing of NATO;
- Suggesting Russia hack more of his opposition's emails;
- Assorted other Putin praisePosted by: SP | Link to this
comment | 11- 1-16 9:06 AM

38

34: I think it will. There's no element of revelation there, you see. That's what I mean about the expose' element.

If it was a leaked tape of Trump talking to a supporter about how Hillary supporters needed beating up, that would be a story. But if he said it at a rally - as he did - well, where do you go from there? For the story to work, he has to be embarrassed about what he said becoming known. But he just repeats the horrible statements and/or denies he ever said them. And the media's constitutionally incapable of simply saying "this is disgusting and wrong" because they love the idea of being impartial. With a coverup, you see, you can report on the behaviour without having to take a stance on whether burglary (or torture or whatever) is wrong.

One of the points made in that podcast is that the Russians might see this election as a uniquely good opportunity because Clinton is already perceived as untrustworthy. More work of the soap opera journalism industry there.

there's a faction at the FBI, and a crew that's particularly willing to leak things to the media, that honestly does care more about the Clinton emails than the Russian government influencing the election

I certainly hope that Clinton goes into presidency with the determination to clean that agency out. This has been a very timely reminder, if her resolve was flagging. I also hope that she has no patience for "norms of the Senate" and other crap that supports the filibuster.

The claim is that underlying all of this there's a sex tape the FSB made while Trump was visiting Moscow and partaking of the local wares. They probably provided the girls and the penthouse suite too (with multiple hidden camera angles and high quality audio).
This also explains why Peter Thiel is so involved in the campaign.

There's been a lot of talk lately about the republicans simply refusing to vote on any of Clinton's court nominees. I'm wondering 1) If this is just standard liberal doom mongering, and 2) What happens if it's true? I assume Clinton's people must have some contingency plan for facing a full blown constitutional crisis.

44- They have three R Senators on record (Burr, Cruz, McCain) saying that's what they'll do, although McCain partly walked it back.
At some point recess appointments come into play, although there's the pro forma session bullshit. But if I remember correctly it was SCOTUS itself that upheld the pro forma sessions as valid so not sure what would happen if the issue was whether an appointment to SCOTUS was valid.

36. I believe this, but I don't think there is evidence. The one group, Fancy Bear, tried taking down a French TV station in 2014 and has hacked Soros' organization. Obviously it would be crazy to do that inside Russia without approval.

But in contrast to completely unambiguous evidence about Chinese hackers (which building they work from, their facebook logins), the Russian hackers are linked to state service by their choice of targets and sophistication of the code rather than being individually or institutionally identifiable.

37. I agree that these appalling consequences suggest that something is seriously wrong.

My question is whether there is public unambiguous evidence that a prosecutor might use if the responsible people were on US soil. For example, there's a 19-year old hacker, Jevgenij Nikulin, now in custody in Prague because the FBI wants him for the LinkedIn breakin. The CZ authorities have not yet decided whether to give the guy back to the Russians or turn him over. I expect that there are behind the scenes discussions of a price to be paid for him.

Basically, I am more interested in learning what the russians are doing, or of clear evidence being ignored by the FBI, than in more intimations that DJT is greedy and short-sighted.

My mother's Finnish Republican boyfriend is totally demoralized by the whole embrace of Russia by mainstream Republicans. Last I heard he's not planning on voting at all. There's a really key demographic lost to the Republican party in this election.

Also, this is a pedantic side point, but it boggles me that Russians have embraced neo-Nazism. How on earth do they spin "Slavs are the untermensch" into something even vaguely supportive of Russian ethnic superiority?

If only there was some agency tasked with investigating this kind of thing...
One of the problems is that there are so many agencies, and none of them clearly has a mandate to deal with this particular set of circumstances. The attribution report was issued by the DNI, so all of them agree that it is the Russians, but following through and investigating a presidential nominee demands that some agency actually step out and risk getting crucified.

60: I dunno, how did they do it last time when they embraced actual no-kidding Nazism? I imagine they just do a search and replace. A limited one; all the stuff about Jews and so on can stay as is.

Or they may actually agree that they're untermenschen, and hence need a strong Little Father to protect them in their childlike holy innocence from the machinations of the encircling evil outside their borders.

Right, it seems so weirdly self-hating. Like, if you're going to start a ethnic/racial supremacist movement, wouldn't you want to not borrow heavily from the one that declared you stupider than animals and barely fit to be slaves? Or the one that killed your grandparents? I get the Nazis had good design sensibilities, but you could probably come up with some "Russian" alternative to the swastika that still looked snazzy on an armband.

The uneasy alliance between Hitler and Stalin while Hitler was preparing an attack and Stalin was preparing for a defense against a German attack can hardly be described as an ideological embrace of actual Nazism by either the Russian leaders or the general populace.

1. The Nazis hadn't killed 30 million Soviets at that point and 2. The Central Committee declaring that we have always been friends with Germany isn't the same as random Russian people spontaneously declaring themselves Nazis and lynching yellow people on Hitler's birthday.

Maybe I should rethink watching the sex tape. I really don't want to see Trump in the buff, but one has to think that the women the FSB recruited to entrap him would be absolutely slamming hot 10/10 Slavic beauties. Which I understand are plentiful east of the Danube.

Hey, this is Russia we're talking about. "Weirdly self-hating" is practically the national mission statement.

On the broader topic, I think the problem is that people have spent too much time talking about how evil the Nazis (and indeed the Confederates) were, and not enough time talking about how they totally lost. Because being brutal and evil is kind of exciting to a certain sort of person. They'll see pictures of smirking guards massacring civilians or beating slaves and think "hey, those guys look like they're on top of the world! I want to be them!" What they should be seeing, over and over again, is pictures of pathetic surrendered German soldiers being herded away into POW camps. A certain sort of person wants to be Amon Goeth. And why not? He thought of himself as a god, with absolute power of life and death over thousands. No one wants to be some ragged Obergefreiter with no boots and his hands up being rooted out of his slit trench.

78.2: I used to occasionally browse military history discussion boards, and the attitude you describe was weirdly prevalent. To hear those folks tell it, the Nazis were continuously kicking everybody's ass until all of sudden allied armies were somehow occupying Germany.

can hardly be described as an ideological embrace of actual Nazism by either the Russian leaders or the general populace.

Yes, it's not as though Russian leaders then embarked on a concerted programme of expansion through territorial conquest, ultra-nationalist propaganda, repression, forced transfer and wholesale imprisonment of ethnic minorities, deliberate extermination of the intelligentsia of conquered countries in order to render the population less likely to resist, anti-Semitic paranoia, and actual parades of goose-stepping soldiers.

What annoys me is when the Wehrmacht is given a pass on evil because of various military talents and not being directly under the Nazi Party at some point or whatever. "They weren't like those horrible SS, they were fighting for their country!"

Which is bullshit. They were waging aggressive war against other countries, and committing plenty additional war crimes in the process.

Right, that's why it's a pedantic point. Like, it's not weird that Russians are fascist, racist, xenophobic, antisemitic, etc. It's weird that they've picked *Nazism* as the vehicle to channel it through. Like, "oh, you know those people who would have hated us as much as the Jews except they thought we were too stupid to be worthy of hate, that ideology would be a great model for our own nationalist supremacist movement."

Also, harking back to the Tooze group, Nazi Germany and the USSR were very much both insurgent powers in the 1930s. They both felt they had something to gain from the violent overthrow of the pre-war order, inasmuch as it had survived WW1 and the Depression, and they acted to achieve it. Both, for example, wanted an end to the intolerable irritation of there being bits of eastern Europe which thought they could be independent. (Russia continues to be irritated by this to this day.)

They were both brutal regimes, but Stalin had a very different motivation for wanting control of Eastern Europe than Hitler. Pan-Slavism with a giant Slavic empire is a different ideology than Nazism, which promoted eventual total annihilation of Slavic peoples and the area resettled by Germanic settler colonists.

I thought that (far right skinheads aside) the Putin-right synthesis in Russia depended heavily still on being authoritarian but anti-Nazi. E.g., linking the insurgents in Ukraine (with some plausibility in some cases, but, of course, being Eastern Europe, it's complicated) to neo-Nazi or crypto-Nazi Ukranian movements.

Their only chance would be to try to break up Europe - to stop it functioning as a unified economic opponent by destroying the EU, and to stop it functioning as a unified military opponent by destroying NATO.

Although for Putin-supported Europe, the current beef with Germany seems to be in large part that the Germans are too fond of brown people, thus allowing Putin to position himself as both anti-German and pro-racist.

92: the Putin government definitely still uses "Nazi" as an insult. So the Germans are Nazis, the Maidan protestors are Nazis, everyone in Ukraine is a Nazi, etc etc. They're never actually going to come out and say "hey everyone we are Nazis now". That would damage the branding.

You'll note that there's absolutely no information in the document linked in 96, as everything except form text is redacted. But I'm sure we'll see news stories about how documents from another Clinton investigation were released today.

92/95: Yes, the Great Patriotic War is still being fought but at the same time Putin's security state is blithely ignoring gangs of neo-Nazis. The authoritarianism and incoherence ar of all of a piece, built like BC says, it's really striking that normal Russians, raised on three generations of anti-Nazi propaganda, are turning out Nazi.
97: Thanks!

82 - one of the oddest features of the post-war was Churchill's and Basil Liddel-Hart's (totally bullshit) defense of von Manstein on war crimes charges, which led to the myth of the "clean" Wehrmacht that held sway until like the 90s or so. I mean von Manstein was a legit military genius who, partly by getting pretty lucky, beat France and turned the war into the cataclysm that it was, but I have no idea why Churchill and respectable Brits put themselves on the line for the guy.

I have no idea why Churchill and respectable Brits put themselves on the line for the guy

Basically we needed him, or rather we needed people like him, to rebuild the Bundeswehr and make NATO into a semi-credible force rather than simply a speedbump for the Group of Soviet Forces Germany on its way to Brest.

103 is true. Also Western and American historiography of the Eastern Front at that time was heavily shaded by Wehrmacht accounts. Also puffing up the German reputation takes some heat off the British for their often very dubious performance in the war. Also Liddell Hart was claiming throughout to have invented blitzkrieg, so German mythology would reflect back on him.

106: indeed. It's good for everyone to puff up the reputation of the enemy you took so much trouble to beat. I'd add Russia to that; if the Germans weren't so super-terrific, then how come they managed to tear the Red Army apart in five weeks and drive all the way to the Volga?

103 - sure, to some extent there needed to be some settlement that allowed trained German soldiers to serve in a NATO force, but (especially in retrospect) it's not totally clear why the line had to be Wehrmacht/non-Wehrmacht vs. German soldiers who were actively war criminals vs. those who weren't. Some weren't!

I think 106/107 may have had more to do with it, especially with members of the allied forces who liked to think of themselves as masters of strategy.

96 appears to be an in relation to Bill Clinton's pardoning of Marc Rich on the last day of his Presidency, which was corrupt as hell and is totally fair game for discussing as part of the election. I'm actually kind of annoyed it wasn't brought up before, because that kind of sleaziness bothers me a lot more than email servers.

But, the FBI timing the release of these documents for a week before the election: also super questionable. The special prosecutor should look into that too.

A couple speculative ideas on the whitewashing (ahem) of the Wehrmacht:

A. The Americans, at least, would have had (probably some bullshit Dunningesque version of) Lee's surrender to Grant in mind, and the underlying premise that, if you want to end hostility, then you need a way to forgive and even valorise your opponent. RT's point is that it was Brits working the "innocent Wehrmacht" angle, but I can't help but think that a good chunk of Americans would have been nodding along.

B. Surely the experience with the dismantling of the Iraqi Army gives us a pretty good idea of the alternative. Sure, it would be nice to actually pluck out the criminals, but that's an endless task, one that massively threatens cohesion and invites endless replaying of old, war-foggy disagreements. Point being, even aside from the threat of the Red Army, the Allies were 100% correct to recognize that the entire Germany military couldn't be disbanded or demonized. And I don't actually think you can do that on a case-by-case basis.

C. To follow up the last bit: Let's stipulate that, among absolute top-level commanders (theater level? Somewhere up there. People whose only superiors were the political Nazis), you could select out the war criminals. But once you go even a little bit below that level, it's absolute poison, because you're going to have privates who've done far worse than officers that you're going to want to strike from eligibility. That is, once you start adjudicating anyone below top commanders, you basically have to put every soldier in the whole army on trial.

116: Book recs anyone? I know nothing about the reconstruction of Germany. Tooze says incidentally that it was profound, and deliberately imposed by the Allies. Interesting that it worked and I'd really like to know how.

the Allies were 100% correct to recognize that the entire Germany military couldn't be disbanded or demonized

But the Allies did completely disband the German military, for 10 years, until it was re-launched (in the West) in 1955. Before then it had completely ceased to exist.

That is, once you start adjudicating anyone below top commanders, you basically have to put every soldier in the whole army on trial.

Not really. The question is did you command, or have command responsibility for, war crimes. Or did you in fact execute war crimes. Fairly large chunks of the Wehrmacht fell into neither category, and so weren't actually war criminals (and were never thought to be). Von Manstein wasn't one of them.

I'm actually broadly sympathetic with the idea that there needed to be some kind of settlement in the 50s that provided some kind of absolution, even if not justified, for the "ordinary" German soldier as part of the creation of a modern democratic German army. But ISTM that the "clean Wehrmacht" myth went fairly far beyond that and in particular seems to have been enthusiastically greeted by allied populations amd people like Churchill in ways that weren't necessary at all.

116 B & C: Thinking about this makes the epic fail in Iraq even more striking. "De-baathification" was directly inspired by de-Nazification, and if the people in charge had bothered to learn anything about history, they would have known that de-Nazification was basically abandoned as a hopeless task (except for the major leaders) early on.

123: And if they had studied history instead of name-checking it, they would have known they needed an army of occupation numbering hundreds of thousands, that would remain for years. Which is what the Army told Rumsfeld, and what Rumsfeld didn't want to hear. He would chase out of his office anyone who even said the word 'occupation'. He forbade planning for it: the military invaded Iraq literally without a occupation plan.

I don't really know enough to have this be anything other than trolling, but didn't the "de-Baathification" part of the US adventure in Iraq work out pretty well? There's no substantial movement to restore Sadaam's lieutenants or the Baath party to power. To be clear disbanding the Iraqi army was a huge mistake and plenty of ex-soldiers were happy to fight for equally horrible causes and 125 is totally correct but the no more Baath party thing specifically kinda worked. So, yay, but not yay.

Actually I decided a long time ago that the hardliners in the Bush administration were right that we should have just put Chalabi in charge and left asap. Not that things would have worked out well, but I don't think it could have worked out any worse for the Iraqis, and many less Americans would have died.

My understanding is that the de-Baathified people went on to lead the Sunni insurgency and, eventually, ISIS. Just because they weren't Baathists anymore doesn't mean they weren't outside the tent, pissing in.

128: There kind of is such a movement in that ISIL and AQ in Iraq before it were formed and led by ex-Baathist officers. But they're also hardline jihadis so they would have been fighting regardless of American policy.

That's my (not very deep) understanding too. Or, more precisely, they weren't the origin or core of either the Sunni insurgency or ISIS but that a lot of ex-Iraqi-army troops ended up in the insurgency or ISIS. I was making a super narrow point about getting rid of the Baath party/ideology, which is kind of ultimately a who gives a shit, but this is the internet.

131: Something I only learned recently: those Baathist jihadis were jihadis long before the invasion. In the 1990s Saddam 'Islamized' and Salafist ideology starting spreading through the regime. Which is why the biggest problems the Americans had in 2003 was suicide bombers and suicidally brave militias. Almost all of those fighters were Iraqi, government sanctioned.

I vaguely remember the Isalmisation of the Iraqi government being used as a talking point by neocons in support of the invasion and dismissing it at the time as part of the general Bush administration effort to blur Sadaam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. But maybe they were right.

133: ex-regime elements were and are the core of AQI/ISIS, but they were never ideologically Baathists. By 2003 Baathism was long dead as an ideology, witness the mostly secular army deserting en masse while the Islamist militias fought to the death. Whereas in 1945 Nazis were absolutely fighting to the death, in the name of Nazism.

WHEN did everyone get so into Nazis??? My (Jewish) dad and brother were getting like, very jazzed about Rommel the other night at dinner, like, "oh he was a slightly better Nazi." Is that consensus now? That we have slightly better Nazis?

I think the Nazis that fought in North Africa ended up looking slightly better than the others. But that's probably because out in the middle of the desert there were no Jews, gypsies or communists to murder.

I read a biography of Rommel in HS, and I have no idea how accurate it was, but there were a number of fascinating stories. He was decorated in the first WW (fighting Italians) as well as his success in the second. He seems to have been fairly apolitical (other than having a generally right-wing attitude) and turned against Hitler at the end -- and was a notable military commander.

This isn't to defend him, just to say that he's the sort of historic figure that people who like tactical board games really appreciate.

"What we learned even in the 90s--there are never, ever any standards for a journalist writing about Russia. Ever. The more bigoted and fantastical, the better. And when your hack crap is completely 100% debunked by other revelations, no editor will ever, ever discipline you. The only way you can have problems with Russia journalism is if you step away from the herd. No editor will ever forgive you for it."

167: nitpick - Patton never fought Rommel. He fought the French in Tunisia, then Rommel was moved out of theatre. Then Patton was sacked in Sickly for slapping wounded soldiers. By the time Patton arrived in Normandy Rommel had been killed.

44There's been a lot of talk lately about the republicans simply refusing to vote on any of Clinton's court nominees. I'm wondering 1) If this is just standard liberal doom mongering, and 2) What happens if it's true? I assume Clinton's people must have some contingency plan for facing a full blown constitutional crisis.

I think there are four possibilities.

1. It's all bluster, they give in when actually faced with another 4 years of a Democratic president and confirm Merrick Garland or someone similar.

2. Clinton goes all Third Way and nominates someone even more appealing to Republicans than that.

3. Recess appointment. As 48 said, whether it could be done on the Supreme Court is an open question. Presumably her nominee would recuse themselves from ruling on their own fitness to hold office.

4. The court persists with a 4-4 split until the next Republican president and the world doesn't end. I don't have a link handy but I've read that this would be good or neutral at worst for the left (until, of course, that Republican president comes along), because there happen to be more Democrats or Democratic appointees on the courts immediately below the SC.

If 4 is correct, then presumably Republicans are stonewalling on a nominee based on the appearance of it and fear of getting primaried, not because they actually think the status quo is good for their causes. Or because they think they can deal with 4 years of decisions not going their way and the Democrats won't stonewall like they have. If 4 isn't right, then I have no idea how I'd rate the likelihood of the other 3 possibilities. I hope for 1 but I know better than to hope.

I certainly hope the Dems take the Senate and abolish the filibuster. Since I'm in a state that was nigh-broken by Republican unwillingness to govern, which was overcome by force, I can tell you from experience that it is quite nice when governing returns.

I was thinking this morning. Yes, of course conservatives will want to de-legitimize any next Dem candidate. But is there anyone else in the wings that they've spent twenty years calling a crook? I can't think of anyone else that they've poured the energy and hatred into like Clinton. I've heard that the Dems nationwide don't have a deep bench, which is weird to me, since we have a handful of good gubernatorial candidates, but we're not going to get this same dynamic of "everyone always already know she's corrupt" the next time. They haven't prepared the ground for that with any other Dem politician.

When this election is over and the bedwetters have calmed down, remember that another perspective is that we won with what the other side would consider our worst possible candidate. And we still won. Fuck worrying. They're out for a generation unless they change a whole lot.

I'm not sure I conveyed my opinion right. I don't think she is our worst possible candidate. Maybe I should say: we will have won this with our most-handicapped contender. In the next rounds, we won't have to deal with that, because they aren't spending the time now hanging weights on anyone else the way they have done to her. At least, I can't think of anyone else who is getting that treatment.

Concur with 196. Conspiracy theory and a glib shouting televised face are enough, the details are not important.

Trumpism today, trumpism tomorrow, trumpism until the crackers stop voting. The demographic question is whether asismilated immigrants will buy into Trumpism in numbers, or only the angriest among them will. I don't know the answer, and don't know that anyone else does either-- I'd guess that it will vary by county actually.

I'm sure they will try, but I don't see them grooming their people to believe the Two Minutes Hate against any other specific person the way they have Clinton for twenty-five years. I mean, had the candidate been Jerry Brown, he'd have been properly accused of being illegitimate-'cause-liberal, but I don't think half the country would believe there MUST be something corrupt in his emails, if only more searching would find it.

Later we learned that the car had halted a few hundred yards up the hill from our house in an open space at the edge of the wood. Gestapo men, who had appeared in force from Berlin that morning, were watching the area with instructions to shoot my father down and storm the house if he offered resistance. Maisel and the driver got out of the car, leaving my father and Burgdorf inside. When the driver was permitted to return ten minutes or so later, he saw my father sunk forward with his cap off and the marshal's baton fallen from his hand

And on second thought I know a Muslim Trump supporter. He is a convert and most people in this state are Trump supporters. He is also a big fan of Ramsay Snow from Game of Thrones. I asked him if he liked them both for the same reason, but he didn't answer me for some reason.

I knew the woman who had the chair to the left of the ex-shahess in Paris for weekly hair upkeep. I vaguely recall something about the lapdogs being a bit aggro with each other, which, hey you be you lapdogs! Lovely lovely scenarios deroule from the premise ...